2. We examine both the judgment and the prosecutor’s respective unfair claims for sentencing.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The crime of this case is an indecent act by approaching the victim who appears to drink at the latest night and committing an indecent act, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the defendant bread the victim’s chest by inserting his hand into the victim’s inner part, and the degree of indecent act is heavy, such as the victim’s rain and rain.

However, there is no other record of crime except that the defendant has been punished for the crime of this kind before about 28 years, and the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant (the attorney-at-law of the victim delivered the above intent of the victim through his written opinion on December 12, 2018), etc. are favorable circumstances.

The court below determined the punishment in consideration of all the above circumstances, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions that may be particularly considered in the trial.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed reasonable, and the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or less than the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

All of the arguments that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor are unfair are dismissed.

3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor is groundless.